Author Archive for James

PowerPoint: Official Weapon of Mass Persuasion

Image from the blog post Watercooler Confidential, "Death by PowerPoint." Click image for original post.

Government malfeasance and bureaucratic incompetence step aside: there’s now a new reason for the US failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it’s a product made by Microsoft. According to this widely circulated article in the New York Times, the over-use of PowerPoint, Microsoft’s sleep inducing presentation software, is the new menace threatening the success of the US military adventures in the Middle East. The article cites a growing number of high-ranking military officials who are increasingly critical of the communication platform. The greatest threat to clarity for many of these officials, the paper reports, is not the muddled mess of circles and arrows pictured above, but the emphasis on hierarchical thinking, which, according to several military officers, even those who frequently use PowerPoint, tends to dumb down and generalize the information being conveyed.

“Some problems in the world are not bullet-izable,” said Brig. Gen. H. R. McMaster, adding “It’s dangerous because it can create the illusion of understanding and the illusion of control.”

This complaint is, of course nothing new. Edward Tufte makes the near identical argument in his 2003 essay: “The Cognitive Style of Power Point: Pitching Out Corrupts within.” That essay includes a remarkable discussion of how NASA’s over-reliance on PowerPoint may have inadvertently been responsible for the failure of the Space Shuttle Columbia upon re-entry February1, 2003, claiming that reliance upon bulleted information led to a kind of sales pitch mentality, which obfuscated the real threat posed by the debris impact shortly after launch. “The language, spirit, and presentation tool of the pitch culture had penetrated throughout the NASA organization, even into the most serious technical analysis, the survival of the shuttle,” said Tufte.

Could this very well be what happened in May of that same year, when military and administration officials decided to invade Iraq in search of WMDs? Indeed, the actual decision to invade was obviously a cynical fait accompli, manufactured by The White House and Downing Street, but one can only imagine the great number of PowerPoint pitches that made that decision possible, not to mention the number that followed the invasion which helped to justify the continued presence of US troops in the absence of any chemical or nuclear weapons.

Each semester I teach a workshop on presentation basics to several groups of Business Department students here at Baruch, and, despite the continued uncritical reliance upon PowerPoint, or perhaps because of it, it seems like students are beginning to figure out that the templates Microsoft provides are maybe not the best place to begin their presentations. When I tell students “PowerPoint is for your audience, not for you;” when I try to explain the importance of presenting information visually in a clear and objective form; and when I make the suggestion that maybe they avoid using PowerPoint entirely, I don’t receive nearly as many looks of angry consternation as I used to. Perhaps, just like the generals interviewed for the Times piece, these students have been the victims of one too many redundant, unimaginative, and narrow-minded PowerPoint presentation (often from their instructors) and maybe, just maybe, they’re ready to move beyond the tyranny of the bullet-point.

Either way, there is at least one place where the use of PowerPoint may be expected to lose some of its attraction. I just found out that Edward Tufte has been hired by the Obama Administration as a member of the Recovery Independent Advisory Panel, to help investigate and clearly explain the impact of the $787 Billion economic stimulus package passed last year. If only we could now get him to explain credit default swaps to Congress.

Teaching Naked or The Perils of PowerPoint

While many colleges, even in these tough economic times, are spending small fortunes outfitting their classrooms with the latest technology, The Chronicle is reporting that the dean of the Meadow School of the Arts at Southern Methodist University is actually taking computers out of the classroom. According to Dean Bowen, classrooms equipped with computers and internet access encourage, among other things, bad lectures. Bowen’s biggest complaint, not surprisingly is the use of PowerPoint lectures, which according to several polls, seem to be causing an epidemic of student boredom. Like so many Baruch BPL students, who have bored their fair share of Communication Fellows with meandering and pointless PowerPoint presentations, it seems teachers at Southern Methodist have a difficult time understanding how to use PowerPoint effectively to convey information visually. Although the article is more thorough, in the video above Bowen makes a good argument for why he took the computers out of the classroom, and he makes an especially good argument about the value and importance of interactive classroom discussions. But Bowen is no Luddite nor is he a neophyte when it comes to using technology in the classroom, and in many ways, this is where I part ways with Dean Bowen, who has reportedly used video games to teach his students about the history of Jazz and encourages his professors to put their lectures on podcasts so that students and professors can spend more time exploring lecture ideas in the classroom. What matters most about this argument, though, is that whether you use technology in the classroom or not, it is the ratio of student to teacher interaction that matters most. Perhaps there is a place for podcasts and classroom blogs (I would personally draw the line at video games) but these technologies should not become a substitute for student/teacher interaction.

Back to Basics: Resisting the Allure of Web Technology in the Classroom

naysayer_carttoon1

Cartoon taken from Paul Silli's blog post "Why Should School Districts Invest in Technology."

“Bill Gates says, ‘Wait till you can see what your computer can become.’ But it’s you who should be doing the becoming. What you can become is the miracle you were born to work—not the damn fool computer.” —Kurt Vonnegut

“To go into solitude, a man needs to retire as much from his chamber as from society.” —Ralph Waldo Emerson

Last semester I picked up a $1,000 check from City College for a faculty development workshop that I participated in over the winter break. The workshop was designed to introduce interested faculty to the uses of technology in the classroom and was, no surprise, sponsored by Verizon. As a struggling graduate student who finds himself consistently behind on the rent, I was delighted to receive the money, but part of me feels bad (well almost) since it turns out I really have no intention now, nor did I ever, of using any more technology in my classroom than I normally would. In fact, instead of instilling in me a sense of possibility and excitement, the workshop made me deeply suspicious of the supposed pedagogical value of technology in general. Although it helped me realize that there are, indeed, several kinds of fascinating and interesting things you can do with web applications both in and out of class, I remained unconvinced that using those technologies would actually help my students to better learn the things that matter: how to be, for instance, a thoughtful and contemplative person capable of formulating, analyzing, critiquing, and communicating difficult and original ideas.

The leader of the workshop was, I am quite proud to say, an old student of mine from Hunter College who is now getting his PhD at the Graduate Center and is the head of the Writing Center at my campus. For the entire eight hours, he led the faculty members present that day through a series of exercises that were meant to introduce us to web-based applications that we could use to “help students learn.” While I was familiar with most of the applications and platforms that were being introduced, I had never thought of using any of them in the classroom. From Google and Wikipedia, to YouTube, Flickr, Twitter, WordPress, and Facebook, we talked about the potential pedagogical value of these various information, publishing, and social networking platforms. It was a stretch, but we did our best to articulate the different ways we might use these programs or services in our classrooms. The idea of using blogs and Facebook pages was especially popular, as was the idea of using YouTube videos as learning tools.

After the workshop I felt obligated to think more about the ways that I could use some of this technology to help my students learn better, and, since I had to write a report on precisely that subject in order to qualify for the stipend, I spent a good amount of time contemplating my options. The more I wrote and the more I reflected on my thoughts, however, the more I realized that I didn’t want to use any technology in my classroom: not this semester, not next, and if I could help it, not ever. In fact, the more I tried to justify and find a place for technology, the more I kept thinking about what was being lost. Sure, showing a YouTube video is a fine way to generate conversation, but it is the conversation, and not the act of watching a video that matters, and in an English class, where the subject is language itself, does it really make sense to show a video? Technology, no doubt, provides a vast array of new options, but do we really need more of these kinds of options, and do any of them actually aid in the learning process or simply provide us with a temporary distraction from it? What are we sacrificing when we introduce new technologies into the curriculum? And what kinds of messages are we sending to our students?

In an age of increasing technological innovation and scientific breakthrough it is easy to get caught up in the idea that, as educators, we must prepare our students for the brave new worlds that await them. As our lives and our relationships with others become more and more mediated through the use of technology, it seems reasonable that we would teach our students how to use those new technologies to their advantage. To question this assumption, to ask why seems like a selfish, almost churlish endeavor, designed to actively cheat our students out of their right to self-empowerment. Nonetheless, once the question is out of the box the answers become increasingly complicated.

First of all, the use of web technology in the classroom not only assumes that it will remain a viable and useful tool (rather than, say, going the way of the Dewey Decimal System and the card catalog) but that the use of such technologies are a social good. The idea that the university or academy, funded by Verizon, should feel obliged to keep pace with the entrepreneurial fits of the World Wide Web, or that we should feel ashamed not to be on top of the latest marketing device disguised as a communication platform, seems shortsighted.

Indeed, one of the things that frightens me about the often uncritical embrace of technology in the classroom is the way that it potentially dehumanizes the educational experience, where students spend more and more time both in and out of class looking at video screens, computer monitors, Blackberries, and iPhones, rather than looking at the world around them, talking to each other, or most importantly, spending time alone with their thoughts. Sure, constant e-mail, tweeting, texting, and ironic Facebook updates may feel like meaningful communication, but what’s really being communicated besides a desperate desire for the type of community that, without the distance digital communication makes possible, would already exist?

What concerns me most, however, is not what we are introducing into our classrooms—after all, I admit a preference for polished, word processed documents instead of smudgy handwritten ones—but what we might be losing. I’d like to make the argument that, despite our increasingly technological lives, or perhaps because of them, the creation and conservation of technology-free spaces where people can, and are encouraged to communicate face-to-face, free of distraction, with nothing more than their unique temperaments and their private store of knowledge and eloquence, seems more and more important to me. Our students are already attention-deprived and overloaded. The idea of forcing them back onto the Internet, especially to privately owned, for-profit websites like Facebook and YouTube, as part of their schoolwork, seems at best counterproductive and at worst incredibly irresponsible, even unethical. Instead, shouldn’t we be encouraging our students to carve out spaces of time for themselves that are free from the distractions of the market and the market driven popular culture that typifies the Internet. Shouldn’t we be encouraging them to be skeptical and critical of this mass culture, or better yet, encouraging them to ignore it completely. Should we not be inviting them instead to think in full sentences; to write more than 140 characters at a time; and to have the self-reliance and self-sufficiency to be alone with themselves and their thoughts for more than the seven or eight hours they spend unconscious each night.

As a profession we seem to have thoughtlessly embraced the idea of technology precisely because we see it as a way of making learning easier and more accessible for more of our students. Obviously—the logic goes—our students are comfortable using the Internet and social networking tools, so why not allow them to use those skills to learn? This kind of thinking is common among instructors who embrace popular culture because they think it will help their students “relate” to the course material. These are the same teachers who spend class time screening Hollywood versions of Shakespeare because students are supposedly incapable of understanding Elizabethan English or who teach rap lyrics or song lyrics as poetry, because it’s easier for students to get the difference between a tenor and a vehicle when it’s Tupac or Bob Dylan speaking than when it’s Dylan Thomas or Langston Hughes. But our calling as educators extends beyond merely providing our students with opportunities to learn material. As educators we are also responsible for providing our students with experiences which they would not otherwise have access to, such as the experiences that result from finding solutions to difficult problems, engaged and thoughtful conversation, and collegial argument. But even more than this, it is important that we offer our students alternatives to the kinds of experiences provided by the technology of mass media. If we are going to insist on teaching them how to get by in the corporate world they’ve been given, we need to at least teach them that other worlds are still possible.

The Wave of the Future: What has Google Done?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_UyVmITiYQ[/youtube]

I am not usually the kind of person who watches hour long YouTube videos, especially geeky developer previews of new technology, but I just spent the last hour and twenty minutes watching the developer preview of Google Wave, and I am totally blown away. It looks like Google has done for email what the Iphone did for the plain vanilla cell phone. Taking advantage of the near real-time communication that HTML 5 is going to make possible, Google has made a web-based application that combines e-mail, instant messaging, photos, blogging, Twitter, Facebook, real-time games, an incredible translation tool, and pretty much any other application under the sun, all in one place.

The potential sea-change evident in the idea of communicating in “waves” instead of e-mails, is tantamount to the shift in communication that took place with the invention of e-mail itself, and while I was watching the video I couldn’t help but think of the several potential communications nightmares that Google Wave will make possible. Indeed, communicating in real-time without the aid of body language sounds like it could be a potential disaster for interpersonal relationships. Not only can you now accidentally send that rant about your boss to the entire office, but your boss can reply immediately while everyone else you sent it to watches in real time—the simultaneous eruption of laughter would be enough to make anyone think twice before hitting click ever again. And the new netiquette surrounding just how much and how often to change someone’s original wave, or how often to comment in-text, or who to send games or photos to, should be interesting. Indeed, the entire idea of real-time collaborative communication means that we will have to be much more careful and thoughtful about how we communicate online. Whether or not we actually will, of course, remains to be seen.

Although it is easy to gush about Google, and Google Wave does indeed seem like a great and entirely new way to communicate online, there are plenty of other reasons for concern. For one thing, in order for “waves” to work, they must be accessible to all of the recipients simultaneously. This means that Google must store all of its “waves” in one central server, meaning that any wave ever sent will, in all likelihood, be available for a very long time. The legal and civil rights implications of this seem endless, especially considering that many waves will contain information from many different people, so if the FBI or CIA wants to investigating someone you’ve communicated with, they may also be, by default, investigating you, your friends, family, and anyone else unlucky enough to be involved in one of your “waves.” Even more disturbing, of course, is that Google will have access to all of this information without a subpoena, and, although Google has vowed not to be evil, mission statements change. But what really scares me about Wave, and frankly, everything that Google does, is that they do what they do so well, so fast, and with such charm and aplomb that issues surrounding the consequences of the technology are often not raised until it’s too late. Google may be making “waves” with this new application, but the force of its technology is more like a tsunami.

Of course, this is the nature of all web technology, which seems to have a mind of its own, and thrives on the idea of the invisible hand of the market. In other words if people like it and use, it must be good. Any psychologist, however, can tell you this is simply not true, and that people tend to use what’s available to them and have a very hard time resisting temptations when they are so ubiquitous. And that is perhaps what concerns me most about this new technology. I mean, it’s cool, but do we really need all of this? Is it not just another added distraction to receive a new “wave” every time somebody involved in a project or conversation has something to say? If you think you get a lot of messages in your in-box now just wait. Should I really so easily have the opportunity to play video games with my co-workers online or share my Facebook updates with them? And does this new technology not just make it that much easier to avoid and even forget the often necessary face to face communication that is so vital for healthy personal and professional relationships? Lastly, do we really need to be spending so much time connected to the internet? I mean, I just spent the last hour and twenty minutes of my Friday night watching a YouTube video, for Christ’s sake. Imagine all the other things I could have been doing.

Teaching Writing Intensively (and Often)

It happens at the beginning of every semester. Tucked into my tiny mailbox are a stack of about fifty blue and white student evaluations. The scantron sections of these evaluations, where students “rate” their professors in several categories on a scale of one to seven, never seem especially helpful to me. After all, it is inevitable that some classes will go better than others from semester to semester. And even when the students are responding to a specific prompt, such as “was the course material presented clearly” it is only natural that many of them are going to respond to their overall sense of the course, which is not limited to my instruction but includes their relationship to the course material—whether or not they “like” poetry, for instance—and the experiences, good and bad, that they have had with their fellow classmates. These evaluations, more cynically, as has been shown by many studies, are also often informed by the students’ own sense of whether or not they will receive the grade they wanted or feel they deserve. Because I am a demanding instructor and a moderately tough grader I often feel like I am actively sabotaging my student evaluation scores, which regularly tend to be on the cusp of the departmental average.

As most of us would agree, however, school is not about teaching, but about learning, and I have a feeling that many a “good” teacher is not necessarily helping their students to be good learners, and often the students themselves are the last ones to realize this, especially in classes like literature where quantitative measurements are impossible. How many times, after all, have we heard our students say to each other: “you should totally take a class with professor so and so, he’s a really cool guy”? For me, the point of teaching has always been very simple: make sure that the students think and learn, and it is the open response sections of the student evaluations that I actually find most helpful when re-evaluating the methods I use to achieve this goal. Sadly, most students skip this part of the evaluation, but those who do respond often offer a constructive view of their own experiences and struggles in the class. Many students say nice things, some occasionally complain, and others less frequently express anger. I have come to realize that those expressing anger are usually unhappy about the fact that the course was too difficult, that the reading was too boring, and most often, that there was just too much writing. In fact, one of the most common laments I have heard from my literature students (who are generally required to write two 10 page essays over the semester and regular 1-2 page informal responses for each class) is that it is unfair for me to require so much writing in a class that is not writing intensive.

Continue reading ‘Teaching Writing Intensively (and Often)’